Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

This is true, but Ballard took the job expecting that the QB situation wasn't a factor -- just like everyone else. In fact, having Luck was considered the biggest selling point for the Colts GM job. Fast forward to September 2019, and the team that Ballard was building around Luck suddenly didn't have Luck anymore. 

 

Out of four offseasons, only this last one was undertaken with the understanding that we did not have a franchise QB. It's a major adjustment, and it came out of nowhere.

 

We'll see how this year winds up, but so far, Ballard has been thrown some serious curve balls. 

 

Talking about Ballard's scouting and team building is one thing. But focusing on record and team trajectory is another, and it's pointless to do so without acknowledging the turbulence over the last three seasons.

You bring up a very good point. Had Ballard been drafting for a QB his first couple of years, his drafting would have been a lot different. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think if Andrew Luck was still on this team, this wouldn't even be a question and he would be viewed as the best GM in football.

Great GM for roster depth and complete team.   However, high value positions like WR and pass rusher, definitely lacking in top notch talent drafted or seeing results on the field, it is lik

Given that he had to rebuild this roster that he inherited and then had the Luck departure to deal with, I believe he's done a very good job.  Our defense has improved and we have a top notch OL that

2 minutes ago, bestQBever said:

I think if Andrew Luck was still on this team, this wouldn't even be a question and he would be viewed as the best GM in football.

 

In 2018, it was Hilton, Ebron, and basically nothing else. First year HC, Luck coming back from injury... and by the end of the year, the offense was producing pretty well.

 

We've been complaining about a lack of receivers, but realistically, with a top ten QB like Luck, the more modest additions made with an eye toward future impact would not be looked at through such an intense microscope. They signed Funchess because he was good at the things Luck liked from his receivers; who knows how that would have worked out if Luck didn't retire? Etc...

 

I want good receivers, we don't have a workhorse guy (I really liked AJ Brown), and so on. But with a QB like Luck, the need for that kind of guy is diminished.

 

People also focus on CB. I don't think the team sees CB as a high priority position.

 

Edge rusher, sure. But that's a position that's usually addressed at the top of the draft.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have to wait and see on the receivers.  It's rare for a rookie receiver to dominate out of the gate.  Paris looked really good for a short while til he got injured again.  

 

Pittman has done everything that has been asked of him when playing. . . he just hasn't been asked to do much.

 

Ballard will ultimately have to work out a long term solution at QB.  

 

He's going to have to find a replacement at LT for when Castanzo leaves.

 

And he is ultimately likely going to have to make some choices about some productive/good players.  He may have to let some of them walk just to keep the cap in order.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nickster said:

 

 

Campbell hasn't played so anyone drafted just about anywhere would have more contribution.  If there had been an indicator of injury before then maybe you have a point,  but otherwise it's just kinda like saying that water is wet,  Well, duh.

 

A dead body has as much production as Campbell and Pittman the last month.

 

Happy Excuse Me GIF

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

Let me start off by saying I support Chris Ballard and his approach thus far.

 

Ballard's philosophy has often been seen as quantity over quality. He's dealt with this 2x now in past drafts and has shown pretty good success. 

 

I'm not sure the exact # yet but I believe 80% or more of Ballard's draftees are still active. 

 

That stat alone is the main reason even with the trade downs each year that I support him.

 

His slow methodical approach on building the Colts is certainly trending in the right direction right now but I am really hoping he takes the next step with solving the QB crisis in 21'.

 

What are your thoughts on Ballard?

Do you like him?

Do you hate him?

What do you wanna see different from him?

 

I think I can sum up my opinion on Ballard pretty well with this:

If we had every man healthy on this team and Andrew Luck played for us still, we would be a top 3 NFL team.

The only massive hole on this roster is QB. Sure, we need another stud WR and a true pass rusher, but those issues could be masked by consistently stellar QB play (like how KC’s issues are masked by Mahomes most games)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

I have a feeling Ballard will keep Rivers 1 more year and draft LT in 1st.

 

He will then start Eason in 22' or draft QB high.

I'm not sure of the FA QBs available in 22'

I'd like to get Darnold from the Jets for a 2nd round pick and sign Rosen for cheap.  Then have them and Eason duke it out for the 3 QB spots.   Darnold and Rosen were both thought of as the best QB's in the draft in 2018 and both have only been a part of crappy teams.  

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Myles said:

I'd like to get Darnold from the Jets for a 2nd round pick and sign Rosen for cheap.  Then have them and Eason duke it out for the 3 QB spots.   Darnold and Rosen were both thought of as the best QB's in the draft in 2018 and both have only been a part of crappy teams.  

I don't think we need both Darnold and Rosen. One or the other would be ok.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, chickenMan said:

The only massive hole on this roster is QB. Sure, we need another stud WR and a true pass rusher, but those issues could be masked by consistently stellar QB play (like how KC’s issues are masked by Mahomes most games)

 

KC doesn't have either of those issues, though. I don't think KC has any glaring weaknesses on their roster. Maybe ILB, maybe CB? Some OL injuries, but they're pretty complete on offense, to the point that they could afford a luxury pick RB in the first round... and he's been amazing.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'd like to get Darnold from the Jets for a 2nd round pick and sign Rosen for cheap.  Then have them and Eason duke it out for the 3 QB spots.   Darnold and Rosen were both thought of as the best QB's in the draft in 2018 and both have only been a part of crappy teams.  

I’d be willing to give Rosen a try, he’s barely played at all in the league. With Darnold, while he does have flashes of brilliance a handful of times a season, most of the time he looks like he’s seeing ghosts.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

I don't think we need both Darnold and Rosen. One or the other would be ok.

I think it would be nice.   All 3 would push each other and we could have a pretty strong QB stable.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

KC doesn't have either of those issues, though. I don't think KC has any glaring weaknesses on their roster. Maybe ILB, maybe CB? Some OL injuries, but they're pretty complete on offense, to the point that they could afford a luxury pick RB in the first round... and he's been amazing.

I think their ILB situation is bad and their CB’s are shaky. I didn’t realize the OL quality was due to injuries though, so I’m wrong on that front. I thought their starting OL five was the ones they play now.

Like I said though, Mahomes covers those small weaknesses perfectly.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ballard is a very competent, solid and well respected GM. For the most part I still feel like the franchise is in good hands.  He isn’t infallible and is over rated by some at times.  He was spared from making a huge blunder out of the gate when Josh McDaniels reneged on becoming his head coach. I think that hire could have really set us back. Fortunately, he was on the right side of luck with that.  Unfortunately, Luck kicked him in the butt when he retired so suddenly.  So you take the good breaks along with the bad and hold him to how he adjusts.  His legacy will ultimately be determined by how well he can address the franchise quarterback void. 
 

The Colts win/loss record during the Ballard regime isn’t that impressive considering the respect and deference that fans and colleagues grant him. Yet despite the record, you can clearly see where improvements to the overall roster have been made.  The team is young and laden with potential that still must be realized. Perhaps the biggest challenge to Ballard finding the next great Colts QB is that the team is built well enough to carry an expectation to win and compete right now and for the immediate future. At what point do we insert an inexperienced, strong armed Eason in to see what he can do.  Does that decision potentially jeopardize a future season where the Colts roster would otherwise be expected to complete?  Not an easy decision to make and a delicate balancing act to say the least.

 

Ballard’s drafts have been a mixed bag but he has had some astounding successes that more than make up for any mistakes. His sweet spot is the 2-4th rounds.  His 1st round picks haven’t been noteworthy although he made a great decision to trade last year’s for Buckner.  He loves to trade out of the first round to amass picks or add talent to the roster.  However, eventually he will need to not avoid making a first round selection for fear of drafting another potential bust...like Hooker.

 

All in all, I still like Ballard and believe he is capable of building a Super Bowl caliber team in Indy...eventually. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Myles said:

I'd like to get Darnold from the Jets for a 2nd round pick and sign Rosen for cheap.  Then have them and Eason duke it out for the 3 QB spots.   Darnold and Rosen were both thought of as the best QB's in the draft in 2018 and both have only been a part of crappy teams.  

 

There were rumors about attitude issues with Rosen that go back to before he even got on the field at UCLA. They persisted throughout his college career, at times exacerbated by his own behavior, and followed him through the draft process. He's been ditched by two NFL teams in two seasons, and is on the practice squad for his third team. 

 

I agree that his circumstances have sucked, but I'm also starting to think that there's something to all these rumors. I'd be okay with letting someone else undertake the Josh Rosen Experiment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chickenMan said:

I’d be willing to give Rosen a try, he’s barely played at all in the league. With Darnold, while he does have flashes of brilliance a handful of times a season, most of the time he looks like he’s seeing ghosts.

Yeah.  Either for me.   I still like Rosen.  At times in 2018 he was regarded as the best QB in the draft.   He played a season for a very crappy Arizona team then 3 starts for a crappy Miami team.   I wouldn't sign him to be the outright starter but in a competition it could be good.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

KC doesn't have either of those issues, though. I don't think KC has any glaring weaknesses on their roster. Maybe ILB, maybe CB? Some OL injuries, but they're pretty complete on offense, to the point that they could afford a luxury pick RB in the first round... and he's been amazing.

Man KC has one of the worst rushing defenses in football and a bottom 3rd defense overall.  They have plenty of roster weaknesses.

 

Mahomes play makes it basically irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

There were rumors about attitude issues with Rosen that go back to before he even got on the field at UCLA. They persisted throughout his college career, at times exacerbated by his own behavior, and followed him through the draft process. He's been ditched by two NFL teams in two seasons, and is on the practice squad for his third team. 

 

I agree that his circumstances have sucked, but I'm also starting to think that there's something to all these rumors. I'd be okay with letting someone else undertake the Josh Rosen Experiment.

Yeah, I remember hearing of that.  I'm mostly assuming he has been humbled.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I like Chris Ballard.  I like the way he is building the Colts.  I know we don’t have a QB.  There isn’t one soul on Earth that could’ve predicted Andrew Luck retiring so damn early.  I mean we had a top 5 Oline no elite QB in his prime would’ve retired.  Especially Lucks age he wasn’t even 30 yet.  But besides the QB situation Chris Ballard pretty much has made all the right decisions.  The only one I didn’t like was trading away our pick 13 for Buckner.  I was hopi we hang on to it and get a young DT and take that gamble that he will bloom into a superstar.  I would’ve loved Chris Ballard way way more had he took pick 13 and whatever else needed pick wise to move up and get Herbert out of Oregon.   But besides that Ballard is an awesome GM!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nickster said:

Man KC has one of the worst rushing defenses in football and a bottom 3rd defense overall.  They have plenty of roster weaknesses.

 

Mahomes play makes it basically irrelevant.

 

I don't think the troubled defense so far is due to roster weaknesses. Their roster isn't that much different than it was last year. And rushing defense isn't that important of a stat. Their 4th best in passing yards/game against. DVOA pass defense is 5th, DVOA overall defense is 13th.

 

But my point of contention is that the Chiefs aren't limited at edge or WR. So their QB "overcoming" roster weaknesses isn't really comparable with whatever we need to do to make up for our roster weaknesses. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

In 2018, it was Hilton, Ebron, and basically nothing else. First year HC, Luck coming back from injury... and by the end of the year, the offense was producing pretty well.

 

We've been complaining about a lack of receivers, but realistically, with a top ten QB like Luck, the more modest additions made with an eye toward future impact would not be looked at through such an intense microscope. They signed Funchess because he was good at the things Luck liked from his receivers; who knows how that would have worked out if Luck didn't retire? Etc...

 

I want good receivers, we don't have a workhorse guy (I really liked AJ Brown), and so on. But with a QB like Luck, the need for that kind of guy is diminished.

 

People also focus on CB. I don't think the team sees CB as a high priority position.

 

Edge rusher, sure. But that's a position that's usually addressed at the top of the draft.

 

I do like the way the Steelers and Chiefs keep replenishing the core of WRs with different WRs every year. I expect us to do the same as well moving forward. Pittman has the greater chance of being a go to guy than Campbell, IMO, based on the kind of WR each one is, IMO. 

 

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

I don't think the troubled defense so far is due to roster weaknesses. Their roster isn't that much different than it was last year. And rushing defense isn't that important of a stat. Their 4th best in passing yards/game against. DVOA pass defense is 5th, DVOA overall defense is 13th.

 

But my point of contention is that the Chiefs aren't limited at edge or WR. So their QB "overcoming" roster weaknesses isn't really comparable with whatever we need to do to make up for our roster weaknesses. 

 

That is why with the edge rushers in Freeney and Mathis, elite QB in Peyton and our WRs/TEs during the Polian era, we were able to cover up for lots of blemishes on our D and special teams.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

I do like the way the Steelers and Chiefs keep replenishing the core of WRs with different WRs every year. I expect us to do the same as well moving forward. Pittman has the greater chance of being a go to guy than Campbell, IMO, based on the kind of WR each one is, IMO. 

 

 

That is why with the edge rushers in Freeney and Mathis, elite QB in Peyton and our WRs during the Polian era, we were able to cover up for lots of blemishes on our D and special teams.

 

The WRs have to stay healthy. Three years in a row Ballard has drafted receivers, and three years in a row almost every one of them has had a significant injury. Deon Cain, Reece Fountain, Parris Campbell, Michael Pittman... fringe roster guys have played more snaps than draft picks. Plus Funchess played what, 25 snaps in 2019? And Hilton got hurt.

 

Health has been the biggest factor, IMO. It's left people pining for players like Dontrelle Inman, for crying out loud. 

 

And yeah, that Colts team in today's NFL would hopefully adjust its approach to fit the common game, and would probably be even more dangerous. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bestQBever said:

I think if Andrew Luck was still on this team, this wouldn't even be a question and he would be viewed as the best GM in football.

Well...Luck could definitely hide a lot of warts. I would contend that Ballard inherited Luck which gave him at an advantage starting off.  IMO...Griggson technically should be credited for drafting Luck although we all know that there was no way Irsay would have allowed him not to. Lol  Ballard was charged with cleaning up Griggson’s mess and to put a competent offensive line around Luck to protect him.  He did so but not before Griggson’s failures to do so ruined Andrew. 
 

Ballard may have been perceived as an even better GM if Luck was still QB and healthy but it still wouldn’t necessarily be a fair or true assessment of his abilities.  Now with Luck gone we get to find out how good of a GM Chris Ballard really is.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

The WRs have to stay healthy. Three years in a row Ballard has drafted receivers, and three years in a row almost every one of them has had a significant injury. Deon Cain, Reece Fountain, Parris Campbell, Michael Pittman... fringe roster guys have played more snaps than draft picks. Plus Funchess played what, 25 snaps in 2019? And Hilton got hurt.

 

Health has been the biggest factor, IMO. It's left people pining for players like Dontrelle Inman, for crying out loud. 

 

And yeah, that Colts team in today's NFL would hopefully adjust its approach to fit the common game, and would probably be even more dangerous. 

 

What is it with our WRs and health compared to other rosters around the NFL? Do we have any comparisons to quantify things based on?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Coltsman1788 said:

Well...Luck could definitely hide a lot of warts. I would contend that Ballard inherited Luck which gave him at an advantage starting off.  IMO...Griggson technically should be credited for drafting Luck although we all no that there was no way Irsay would have allowed him not to. Lol  Ballard was charged with cleaning up Griggson’s mess and to put a competent offensive line around Luck to protect him.  He did so but not before Griggson’s failures to do so ruined Andrew. 
 

Ballard may have been perceived as an even better GM if Luck was still QB and healthy but it still wouldn’t necessarily be a fair or true assessment of his abilities.  Now with Luck gone we get to find out how good of a GM Chris Ballard really is.  

I think this team, outside of QB, is much better than the team was in 2018.  In 2018 Luck came back after a year and a half off and had his best season.   Easily his best completion % at 67.3%.  His sack % was only 2.7%.   4600 yards with 39 TD's.   I think with this defense, Luck would have an even better year and the Colts would be thought of as one of the best in the league.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Myles said:

I think this team, outside of QB, is much better than the team was in 2018.  In 2018 Luck came back after a year and a half off and had his best season.   Easily his best completion % at 67.3%.  His sack % was only 2.7%.   4600 yards with 39 TD's.   I think with this defense, Luck would have an even better year and the Colts would be thought of as one of the best in the league.   

I agree if Luck’s heart was still in it.  I’m just saying that it still wouldn’t be a true assessment of Ballard as a GM because he essentially was gifted with Luck before taking this job.  He would be viewed very highly though...I agree with that. With Luck removed now we get to see what Ballard is made of because this roster is pretty much all his going forward.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Myles said:

Yeah.  Either for me.   I still like Rosen.  At times in 2018 he was regarded as the best QB in the draft.   He played a season for a very crappy Arizona team then 3 starts for a crappy Miami team.   I wouldn't sign him to be the outright starter but in a competition it could be good.  

I’d be willing to sign Rosen for competition. I’d be willing to sign Darnold too, but I wouldn’t trade anything for Darnold

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chickenMan said:

I’d be willing to give Rosen a try, he’s barely played at all in the league. With Darnold, while he does have flashes of brilliance a handful of times a season, most of the time he looks like he’s seeing ghosts.

200.gif

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chad72 said:

 

What is it with our WRs and health compared to other rosters around the NFL? Do we have any comparisons to quantify things based on?

 

I don't even try to figure out it. Both Pittman and Campbell were durable in college, they come to the Colts and get hurt. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

Let me start off by saying I support Chris Ballard and his approach thus far.

 

Ballard's philosophy has often been seen as quantity over quality. He's dealt with this 2x now in past drafts and has shown pretty good success. 

 

I'm not sure the exact # yet but I believe 80% or more of Ballard's draftees are still active. 

 

That stat alone is the main reason even with the trade downs each year that I support him.

 

His slow methodical approach on building the Colts is certainly trending in the right direction right now but I am really hoping he takes the next step with solving the QB crisis in 21'.

 

What are your thoughts on Ballard?

Do you like him?

Do you hate him?

What do you wanna see different from him?

 

Love the way he does his business 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jared Cisneros said:

Ballard is the best drafting GM in the league since 2018 IMO (the year he brought HIS scouts in). However, he's shown an inability to draft WRs and EDGE rushers so far, and we don't know if he is able to get us a franchise QB back post-Luck. I do think this team will be good for years to come with him as GM, but Ballard has to drop his mentality that the QB isn't the most important guy on the team. That's just not true, and it's extremely obvious with the Colts.

 

Otherwise, if he continues his drafts the way he currently does them, I want him as my GM. He just needs a plan to get us our new QB whether it be the draft, FA, trade, or starting Eason at some point.

Where in the world did you come up with the idea that Chris Ballard thinks QB is NOT the most important position on the field?!?  He’s never said that, and he’s never even implied it.   It’s stunning that you think that. 
 

Ballard has said he wants to build the roster up around his quarterback so he doesn’t feel he has to win every game by himself, as Andrew did.   He wants a roster good enough to win if the QB isn’t having a great game.   So the running game, the OL, the defense and special teams.  
 

All 32 GMs know the QB is the most important position in the game.   The problem  is there aren’t 32 quality QBs to lead 32 teams.   There are roughly 16-20, sometimes a few more,  in any given year.   Chris Ballard knows how important the QB is.   He had Andrew Luck, for God sakes!   How does his team look without him?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

In 2018, it was Hilton, Ebron, and basically nothing else. First year HC, Luck coming back from injury... and by the end of the year, the offense was producing pretty well.

 

We've been complaining about a lack of receivers, but realistically, with a top ten QB like Luck, the more modest additions made with an eye toward future impact would not be looked at through such an intense microscope. They signed Funchess because he was good at the things Luck liked from his receivers; who knows how that would have worked out if Luck didn't retire? Etc...

 

I want good receivers, we don't have a workhorse guy (I really liked AJ Brown), and so on. But with a QB like Luck, the need for that kind of guy is diminished.

 

People also focus on CB. I don't think the team sees CB as a high priority position.

 

Edge rusher, sure. But that's a position that's usually addressed at the top of the draft.

We don’t have a HEALTHY workhorse receiver.   Otherwise, I don’t think it’s possible to know that Pittman or Campbell aren’t the guys you want.  Their profiles say they should both be very good if they can only stay healthy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

We don’t have a HEALTHY workhorse receiver.   Otherwise, I don’t think it’s possible to know that Pittman or Campbell aren’t the guys you want.  Their profiles say they should both be very good if they can only stay healthy. 

 

I like them both, but they both have a lot to prove. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

I like them both, but they both have a lot to prove. 

Lets say Parris comes back 100% and starts fantastic in 21' but gets hurt again.

 

At what point do we say we gotta move on...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, danlhart87 said:

Lets say Parris comes back 100% and starts fantastic in 21' but gets hurt again.

 

At what point do we say we gotta move on...

 

Then, the other question is, if Ballard gets all the groceries we need (say a WR, pass rusher and OT in the draft and/or free agency) and our offense still is not up to Top 10 in the league and the wins don't come, what is the point where you start thinking about other head coaches? I'd have to say 2021 is as far as Ballard will go with Reich if Reich does not at least have 1 division title to his name. Is that a fair thing to say? That would be 4 years out of his 5 year contract.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, EastStreet said:

The only area I really don't like is his DE drafting. Other areas like coaching hires, are still TBD.

 

We had a lot of bad talent when he got here, so it was easy to improve. It's not so easy going forward. 

 

 

 

 

A few related thoughts: 

 

I agree about his DE drafting.  They seem to fit a plan of using rotating players in a number of defensive packages rather than finding 3 down talented DEs.  I think scheme over talent can work at other positions, but not at those island like positions such as DE (and LT, and man-cornerback if we play that occasionally).

 

He chose to switch schemes from a 34 to a 43.  Whatever the level of talent that was there, it was not going to last long anyway simply because of scheme change.  Filling those voids that would have otherwise been filled set him back a few second and third round picks probably.

 

As far as coaching.  It looks like New England is showing us that issues in the talent area can compromise good coaches a little more than we perhaps thought,

 

So maybe Reich doesn't attack the edges so much because he doesn't like the talent he has to work with there yet.  Sees his best chances as being in the middle of the field.

 

Although there are always coaching decisions that can stand out on their own

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...